I was surprised to find that this movie was made as late as 1972. I would have thought it was older than that. The production values were a little off and some of the acting was a bit over the top, but otherwise I enjoyed the movie. Having read the book fairly recently, I thought the story line adhered as much as possible to the book's major events. A movie can't follow a literary narrative precisely so I'm not surprised that some things were out of order. Buck was clearly the star of the show, no matter what breed he was or was supposed to be. I am a little put off by the tone of the comments on this forum. I think it's an unconscious reaction people have to the cruelty of the topic, both in the book and the movie. Some parts were very hard to watch. Were animals hurt during the making of the movie? Probably. The standards of 40 years ago differ from today. However, I do wish people would confine themselves to commenting on the movie and quit criticizing people's spelling and grammar and other irrelevant issues. I love dogs, and the dog personalities expressed seemed true to me. The relationships between people and their dogs were also accurately portrayed. Buck, as we all know, heeded the call of the wild, and at the end, he was finally a free dog. And for the purposes of this story, that's really all that matters.
Please login or 
